:::If OscarO intends for "backdoor spending authority" to have a negative connotation, then it is something different from "spending authority". So, the article that was last edited in 2008 should be restored, and kept separate from the new article that he wrote yesterday. Again, the fact that only 31% of the budget is [[discretionary spending]] may be a good thing. Some people advocate ending most non-defense discretionary spending. Many conservatives favor toll roads, user fees, public-private partnership and privatization over "tax and spend" centralized control. All of these approaches involve decision-making, not "spending on auto-pilot." If the appropriations committees (and Congress as a whole) have less power and control of the economy, conservatives would claim a victory. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 12:57, 11 January 2013 (EST)

:::If OscarO intends for "backdoor spending authority" to have a negative connotation, then it is something different from "spending authority". So, the article that was last edited in 2008 should be restored, and kept separate from the new article that he wrote yesterday. Again, the fact that only 31% of the budget is [[discretionary spending]] may be a good thing. Some people advocate ending most non-defense discretionary spending. Many conservatives favor toll roads, user fees, public-private partnership and privatization over "tax and spend" centralized control. All of these approaches involve decision-making, not "spending on auto-pilot." If the appropriations committees (and Congress as a whole) have less power and control of the economy, conservatives would claim a victory. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 12:57, 11 January 2013 (EST)

:::On the separate issue as to whether the Senate has written and passed appropriation bills, the Senate has done its usual work on appropriation bills, but in some cases, they are blocked from coming to the floor by a Senate Republican filibuster. Reid tried to roll them up into a single, government-wide appropriation bill, but that also drew a filibuster. So, generally speaking, during the past few years Congress has only been able to appropriate funds in the form of continuing resolutions generally based on a percentage of prior year's spending. The funds are being appropriated at least through March 2013. Work is underway for the FY 2014 budget. So, as soon as Congress resolves the rest of the FY 2013 spending debate, it will have to turn to FY 2014 and adopt appropriation bills before October 2013. We are paying 535 officials to debate and make decisions, but all of that work is replaced by McConnell and Biden meeting in secret to work out a last-minute deal. This is not healthy, but CP should be careful to report on it as accurately as possible. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 13:17, 11 January 2013 (EST)

:::On the separate issue as to whether the Senate has written and passed appropriation bills, the Senate has done its usual work on appropriation bills, but in some cases, they are blocked from coming to the floor by a Senate Republican filibuster. Reid tried to roll them up into a single, government-wide appropriation bill, but that also drew a filibuster. So, generally speaking, during the past few years Congress has only been able to appropriate funds in the form of continuing resolutions generally based on a percentage of prior year's spending. The funds are being appropriated at least through March 2013. Work is underway for the FY 2014 budget. So, as soon as Congress resolves the rest of the FY 2013 spending debate, it will have to turn to FY 2014 and adopt appropriation bills before October 2013. We are paying 535 officials to debate and make decisions, but all of that work is replaced by McConnell and Biden meeting in secret to work out a last-minute deal. This is not healthy, but CP should be careful to report on it as accurately as possible. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 13:17, 11 January 2013 (EST)

::::No, I don't think you've grasped the narrative that has ensued since President's Obama's first 100 days. Sen Susan Collins (R-ME) broke ranks and voted to waive the Budget Act of 1974, dispensing with the appropriations process. Under [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703909804575123512773070080.html Slaughter House Rules], the ARRA (intended as only one year "emergency spending" stimulus) and PPACA were passed without bi-partisan consensus. With the Budget Act waived, there's no need for Senate Democrats to go through the regular Appropriations process. Senate Democrats have not passed, nor even proposed a budget in more than three years now, using [[continuing resolution]]s instead -- and keeping Obama's one year, "emergency stimulus" spending levels intact for four years. Hence $5 trillion added to the national debt without our elected Senators even being allowed to vote on appropriations. [[User:OscarO|OscarO]] 13:51, 11 January 2013 (EST)

::::No, I don't think you've grasped the narrative that has ensued since President's Obama's first 100 days. Sen Susan Collins (R-ME) broke ranks and voted to waive the Budget Act of 1974, dispensing with the appropriations process. Under [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703909804575123512773070080.html Slaughter House Rules], the ARRA (intended as only one year "emergency spending" stimulus) and PPACA were passed without bi-partisan consensus. With the Budget Act waived, there's no need for Senate Democrats to go through the regular Appropriations process. Senate Democrats have not passed, nor even proposed a budget in more than three years now, using [[continuing resolution]]s instead -- and keeping Obama's one year, "emergency stimulus" spending levels intact for four years. Hence $5 trillion added to the national debt without our elected Senators even being allowed to vote on appropriations. [[User:OscarO|OscarO]] 13:51, 11 January 2013 (EST)

:::::Respectfully, the comments just above show why "backdoor spending authority" and "spending authority" should be two separate articles. The "spending authority" article was written in 2007 and updated in 2008. It is accurate and objective. "Backdoor spending authority" which was started yesterday, is turning into an opinion essay. Let's look at the appropriation process for FY 2013. [http://thomas.loc.gov/home/approp/app13.html THOMAS summary]. Both the House and the Senate Committee have passed most of the appropriation bills. The full House did not pass 5 of the bills, and all of the Senate bills were filibustered and not allowed to be brought to the floor for a vote. However, the overall spending levels for FY2013 were set by the Budget Control Act of 2011 which included $1 trillion in identified cuts in addition to an across-the-board sequester that was supposed to go into effect on Jan 1, but has now been postponed to Mar 1. Many of the appropriation bills have bipartisan support. For example the Senate Defense Appropriation bill passed 30-0. The Appropriations Committees are drafting bills and committee reports and spending cuts have been enacted. Rather than using the regular order of voting on appropriation bills and resolving differences in conference committees and the budget reconciliation process, Congress is shifting from a 525-person process to a two-man negotiation: McConnell/Biden. Continuing resolutions are a form of appropriation (although not a good one.) I respectfully submit that OscarO is misinterpreting sources that addressed the 2009 stimulus bill and the ACA as applying to the FY2013 or FY2014 spending considerations. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 16:40, 11 January 2013 (EST)

:::::Respectfully, the comments just above show why "backdoor spending authority" and "spending authority" should be two separate articles. The "spending authority" article was written in 2007 and updated in 2008. It is accurate and objective. "Backdoor spending authority" which was started yesterday, is turning into an opinion essay. Let's look at the appropriation process for FY 2013. [http://thomas.loc.gov/home/approp/app13.html THOMAS summary]. Both the House and the Senate Committee have passed most of the appropriation bills. The full House did not pass 5 of the bills, and all of the Senate bills were filibustered and not allowed to be brought to the floor for a vote. However, the overall spending levels for FY2013 were set by the Budget Control Act of 2011 which included $1 trillion in identified cuts in addition to an across-the-board sequester that was supposed to go into effect on Jan 1, but has now been postponed to Mar 1. Many of the appropriation bills have bipartisan support. For example the Senate Defense Appropriation bill passed 30-0. The Appropriations Committees are drafting bills and committee reports and spending cuts have been enacted. Rather than using the regular order of voting on appropriation bills and resolving differences in conference committees and the budget reconciliation process, Congress is shifting from a 525-person process to a two-man negotiation: McConnell/Biden. Continuing resolutions are a form of appropriation (although not a good one.) I respectfully submit that OscarO is misinterpreting sources that addressed the 2009 stimulus bill and the ACA as applying to the FY2013 or FY2014 spending considerations. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 16:40, 11 January 2013 (EST)

Line 422:

Line 421:

ok, answer this question (which [http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002801515 even readers at the democraticunderground struggle with]): ''Why hasn't the Democratic-led Senate submitted/passed a budget in 3 years?'' Answer: because backdoor spending puts spending on auto-pilot and there's no need for a budget. [[User:OscarO|OscarO]] 01:32, 13 January 2013 (EST)

ok, answer this question (which [http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002801515 even readers at the democraticunderground struggle with]): ''Why hasn't the Democratic-led Senate submitted/passed a budget in 3 years?'' Answer: because backdoor spending puts spending on auto-pilot and there's no need for a budget. [[User:OscarO|OscarO]] 01:32, 13 January 2013 (EST)

:I am sure you sincerely believe your answer, but it is not true. My personal opinion (which I will leave out of the articles) is that the Senate and the House cannot agree on "special instructions" so the Senate Republicans use a filibuster threat to prevent the full Senate from debating and voting on the annual budget resolution. The budget resolution, as you have agreed, is just a joint resolution of Congress. It is the appropriation bills that actually count, and the Senate Republicans have filibustered those as well, even when they pass the committee on a bipartisan 30-0. You are confusing cause and effect. The cause is politics, not the structure of spending authority. Government is so large that Congress should focus on what is important. The Army base restocking the PX with merchandise is not important and does not affect the budget and should be on "auto-pilot". Please don't confuse a concept with the bad results from it being possibly misapplied. Please don't confuse turf fights between the appropriations committees and the authorization committees with policy debates on the size of government. Write the article so that it is true at both the state and federal level, and if applicable the world. Now, how about lifting the protection on "spending authority"? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 09:23, 13 January 2013 (EST)

:I am sure you sincerely believe your answer, but it is not true. My personal opinion (which I will leave out of the articles) is that the Senate and the House cannot agree on "special instructions" so the Senate Republicans use a filibuster threat to prevent the full Senate from debating and voting on the annual budget resolution. The budget resolution, as you have agreed, is just a joint resolution of Congress. It is the appropriation bills that actually count, and the Senate Republicans have filibustered those as well, even when they pass the committee on a bipartisan 30-0. You are confusing cause and effect. The cause is politics, not the structure of spending authority. Government is so large that Congress should focus on what is important. The Army base restocking the PX with merchandise is not important and does not affect the budget and should be on "auto-pilot". Please don't confuse a concept with the bad results from it being possibly misapplied. Please don't confuse turf fights between the appropriations committees and the authorization committees with policy debates on the size of government. Write the article so that it is true at both the state and federal level, and if applicable the world. Now, how about lifting the protection on "spending authority"? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 09:23, 13 January 2013 (EST)

−

::Wrong. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/jack-lews-misleading-claim-about-the-senates-failure-to-pass-a-budget-resolution/2012/02/12/gIQAs11z8Q_blog.html?wprss=fact-checker The Budget cannot be filibustered]. The ''Washington Post'' Fact Checker awarded Treasury Secretary nominee Jack Lew its top award of four Pinocchios for fibbing on this canard. Also, while a PX operating at a loss or legislative pay raises may impact somewhere like New Zealand's operating deficit, I doubt if these items approximate .00001% of the US federal budget. It should not be too hard to check. But repeated references to such lame, miniscule, and obscure items show you haven't grasped even the broad outlines of the magnitude of the problem. I don't mean to sound disrespectful, but examine the numbers, and examine the facts seriously, for a moment. Thank you. [[User:OscarO|OscarO]] 14:21, 13 January 2013 (EST)

+

::Wrong. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/jack-lews-misleading-claim-about-the-senates-failure-to-pass-a-budget-resolution/2012/02/12/gIQAs11z8Q_blog.html?wprss=fact-checker The Budget cannot be filibustered]. The ''Washington Post'' Fact Checker awarded Treasury Secretary-nominee Jack Lew its top award of four Pinocchios for fibbing on this canard. Also, while a PX operating at a loss or legislative pay raises may impact somewhere like New Zealand's operating deficit, I doubt if these items approximate .00001% of the US federal budget. It should not be too hard to check. But repeated references to such lame, miniscule, and obscure items show you haven't grasped even the broad outlines of the magnitude of the problem. I don't mean to sound disrespectful, but examine the numbers, and examine the facts seriously, for a moment. Thank you. [[User:OscarO|OscarO]] 14:21, 13 January 2013 (EST)

Andy, it is time to reach a decision. Is CP going to have an accurate "spending authority" article (such as the one that was written in 2007 through 2008), or are we going to conflate a civics concept that is applicable at both the state and federal levels with the undocumented personal essay written over the last few days under the term "backdoor spending authority"? If you chose the latter, I will respect your decision and refrain from further remarks. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 12:57, 13 January 2013 (EST)

Andy, it is time to reach a decision. Is CP going to have an accurate "spending authority" article (such as the one that was written in 2007 through 2008), or are we going to conflate a civics concept that is applicable at both the state and federal levels with the undocumented personal essay written over the last few days under the term "backdoor spending authority"? If you chose the latter, I will respect your decision and refrain from further remarks. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 12:57, 13 January 2013 (EST)

Question about Government Homework

Mr. Schlafly,

When I went to post my homework answers last night, Conservapedia did not allow me to “edit” the page. Does the website have a curfew? And for the future, when precisely are the homework assignments due? Thanks. --MorganT 17:42, 21 September 2012 (EDT)

Editing was turned off by the system for a few hours yesterday. Sorry for any inconvenience due to not being able to post. Assignments are due on Wednesdays, but it's not a problem that this homework was late.--Andy Schlafly 17:58, 21 September 2012 (EDT)

iPSC therapies

Sorry to belabor the point, but I thought you might find this interesting. There are currently fifteen active clinical trials in the United States using patient-derived stem cells ("adult stem cells") to treat spinal cord injuries. At least one of these trials uses induced pluripotent stem cells derived from terminally-differentiated cells. In spite of the astronomical cancer risk associated, this is an active area of clinical research in the United States.--JHunter 17:58, 20 November 2012 (EST)

The link says the location is South Korea, not the United States.

Anti-life types have not, and will not, allow meaningful therapy with adult stem cells in the United States for victims of paralysis.--Andy Schlafly 23:06, 20 November 2012 (EST)

You're right that this clinical trial is in the United States (Texas). Thanks for finding and linking to it. But look at how small and limited the study is: only ten people, and perhaps half of them would receive a placebo rather than the stem cell treatment. Allowing stem cell treatment on only 5 persons every 3 years (the study won't complete until 2014) is so little that it is almost nothing.

It is surprising that the study excludes non-English-speaking patients.--Andy Schlafly 17:30, 21 November 2012 (EST)

Panera Bread

This company must cater to the liberal/harassment crowd, including the one on Mowry Avenue, Fremont; they have that certain "homosexual execution" accuser sitting there now. Should we give them a call? Karajou 14:06, 21 November 2012 (EST)

GregG

I would recommend granting him delete privileges, as he has shown himself to be a fair sysop, and always vigilantly watching for spammers. Also, please do something about the 30 odd pages that still need to be deleted. Thanks, brenden 15:52, 21 November 2012 (EST)

Template fun

I am getting rusty on the template programming syntax, so it took me a few edits to get the right result on both the template documentation and on the individual articles (which should not show extra blank lines in the box.) Everything is fine now, so please protect away. Thanks, Wschact 00:03, 22 November 2012 (EST)

Epistle to the Hebrews

The idea that Jesus is the author of this text is held only by you. Is this enough to put it into an article? Please remember: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable. " --AugustO 14:38, 22 November 2012 (EST)

Um, I also hold the same belief as Aschlafly that the Epistle to the Hebrews was written by Jesus as I don't believe no one else would of had the insight to do it. Dvergne 04:54, 23 November 2012 (EST)

@Dvergne: You are highlighting the danger of the situation: any person not being well informed can be mislead by the authoritative statement in the article!

@Aschlafly: I'm trying to get a kind of poll of the sysops - at least of those (ten including you) who have edited this year (out of a total of thirty!)

User:Conservative deleted this page in my userspace without an explanation. I tried to contact him twice about the deletion at his message area, but he oversighted both of my contributions and protected his message area. Thus, I am asking you to either have User:Conservative explain the deletion of a page in my userspace and/or have the page restored. I also think that User:Conservative's actions in this matter qualify as abuse of administrative powers (and, as an aside, are very ironic considering this user's campaign against those who lack what he/she/it/they/I call "machismo"). Thanks, GregG 22:05, 24 November 2012 (EST)

GregG, you may look back and thank me. You are starting to get obsessed with my every edit and keeping a log of some of my non-main space edits. You are beginning to resemble evolutionists/atheists with Severe Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder. Just look at my deletion as an "intervention". A cold splash of water in the face to break your obsession with me.

We both know what is mainly causing this obsession. You inability to defend evolutionism against valid criticism plus my pointing out that Ken Miller can't either. Conservative 22:21, 24 November 2012 (EST)

This has nothing to do with evolution or religion. I am not obsessed with you. Also, it's ironic that this charge is coming from someone who showed enough dedication to my contributions and/or the recent changes page to delete a page in my userspace. GregG 22:35, 24 November 2012 (EST)

ETA Also, I don't see dedication to this project as a disorder. I trust that you wouldn't either, given your extensive contributions to the project. GregG 22:35, 24 November 2012 (EST)

By your logic, everyone is "obsessed" with Conservapedia; those who deny such, according to you, are exemplifying symptoms. Simply ridiculous. GregG 11:20, 25 November 2012 (EST)

Why don't you both focus on the original topic? I thought userspaces were supposed to be left to the user in question on this project. Isn't that one of the ways we are different from Wikipedia? I seem to recall reading that somewhere on here. Unfortunately, I can't see the page so I don't know what it said. But I think Conservative needs to explain his deletion. This has nothing to do with evolution, obsession, creationism, or any of the other things you guys have been getting into in this thread. It is a more simple matter than that. Focus. Gregkochuconn 21:39, 25 November 2012 (EST)

Feast of Christ the King is today

Perhaps this would be good to mention on our main page. GregG 11:21, 25 November 2012 (EST)

Hi Greg! It's almost time to begin our wait for the birth of Jesus Christ next week. Hope all is well. Because of His merciful love, Nate Nate 15:00, 25 November 2012 (EST)

spambots

You really should look into some way of installing questycaptcha. Also, any idea why they lately aren't spamming links to external sites, but rather spamming us with a wall of text, of no apparent advertisement value?brenden 22:09, 25 November 2012 (EST)

Possible page protection

Andy would you consider protecting Epistle to the Hebrews - currently it's only subject to redundant edit warring that is August removing the theory and MattyD parodying. This type of edit warring isn't good for the page.--IDuan 12:23, 26 November 2012 (EST)

Full disclosure after that initial request the edit warring has died down (hopefully because they finally realized how futile edit warring is)--IDuan 12:32, 26 November 2012 (EST)

Unprotect

Hello; could you unprotect Template:cquote for 2 minutes for me? There's a bug in the template that's causing every page it's featured on to be listed in the categrory Category:Template Debug. Thanks so much! --IDuan 16:12, 26 November 2012 (EST)

Photos

I wrote articles for Jagdpanther and Tiger I tank, recently. I hate to bother you admins as I have seen you have to spend way too much time with spam and reverting vandalism. If you have the time could you find a photo for the articles? I don't know how to upload, nor determine a fair-use photo. Maybe it is something I could learn; is there a guide for it? Cheers,
John.

Revisiting blocking due to names

Hi, best wishes to you on this lovely Sunday. :-) I have a small concern that I was wondering if you'd care to consider: blocking due to user names. Moments ago Dvergne blocked new user LordByron with an expiry time of 6 months with this reason: ("Silly and/or foul username. Account may be recreated as a first name and last initial"). I was wondering if we are being a bit too hasty in blocking for this reason? Certainly we have had way too many spammers/vandals/inappropriate name accounts, and have had to block way more than we should, but to block so quickly before a single edit is made, in a case like this where the use name is not particularly inappropriate, could this be a bit hasty on our part? Could we be discouraging legitimate users? I was just thinking that many older users such as myself, have "nonstandard" user names: Karajou, Conservative, JMR10, are a few other editors that come to mind. We are all valued, responsible editors, although we have non-traditional user names. Just a small thought that came to me today, and was wondering what you thought about it. Thank you for your consideration in this matter, blessings to you & yours. Taj 17:02, 2 December 2012 (EST)

Apologies for an extra edit; one more thought please. I just looked at our Guidelines and it currently states this:

As a sign of good faith and accountability it is recommended that editors select a user name based on a permutation of their real name. Whenever this would cause confusion, a name based upon a hobby or characteristic would also be acceptable.

Perhaps we should revise either our policy to conform to guidelines or guidelines to conform to actuality. Thanks again, Taj 17:08, 2 December 2012 (EST)

Taj, you make excellent points, and your own edits are much appreciated. Perhaps a few blocks have been too hasty, as you say. But in defense of User:Dvergne, he's been doing many appropriate blocks and I think he was probably also correct in blocking "LordByron". The probability is very, very small that a real LordByron established that account, given how few "Lords" there are, and how advanced most are in age (and thus unlikely to be internet savvy). It is far more likely that someone who was not a Lord Byron picked that name, which would thereby warrant an immediate block.

But thanks for your comments and I'd be happy to look at any suggested rewording of the rules. User names other than real first names and last initials are allowed when the editor makes substantive, legitimate edits, but I'd rather not try to formalize that practice in the actual rule.--Andy Schlafly 19:30, 2 December 2012 (EST)

Ok, I understand. Thank you for the reply. I didn't really think that user was a Lord, I just thought perhaps the name would have been ok. But I understand that it is preferred to have real names. Best Wishes, Taj 19:39, 2 December 2012 (EST)

I don't have a firm view one way or the other about the policy. However perhaps a gentle reminder to blockers to not jump the gun might be in order. Today I had to unblock an editor who signed up as JBerttram42 who had been blocked under the username policy. There is no way of knowing whether this editor had good intentions for the site or not, but almost certainly if he was a good faith user he won't be back. --DamianJohn 01:51, 3 December 2012 (EST)

Aschlafly, you are claiming that in the Epistle to the Hebrews Jesus Christ is speaking about himself in the third person. That wouldn't be unheard of, we find this often in classical literature. E.g., when we read

“

Caesar saw the horse.

”

it could well be that Caesar was the author of this sentence. But what's about

“

Caesar saw me.

”

Here it is obvious that Caesar is not the author, as we have an instance of the first person (me). The same holds true for the Epistle to the Hebrews. One example is Hebrews 3:6

Aschlafly, given your apparent aversion against the phrase "I was wrong" and your general shyness when it comes to replying to my comments on this encyclopedia, it is hard to tell whether you have abandoned your claim "one plausible theory is that Jesus himself wrote or dictated it" or just lost interest in the whole thing.

Semantic HTML markup

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

After seeing this edit, I noticed that you used the <br> tag. It's a good idea to use semantic markup where possible so that different users can understand how to format the articles appropriately for various devices. In this particular case, leaving a blank line will cause MediaWiki to crate a new paragraph, which is probably what you were intending. I can go ahead and fix these issues on other pages too. Thanks, GregG 20:22, 3 December 2012 (EST)

Protected Pages

Pretty much every important page on Conservapedia can only be edited by administrators now (as far as I can tell). While I understand the importance of protecting articles, I do not see why debate topics are also protected. Debate pages should be open to everyone and all opinions. RaymondZ 07:54, 4 December 2012 (EST)

Note

"Repent of this Athiesm"

"Repent of this atheism" on the main page should either be "repent for this atheism" or "rid himself of this atheism." You "repent for" something, you don't "repent of" it. Gregkochuconn 22:02, 7 December 2012 (EST)

Is it just a temporary loss of interest...

... or have you discarded your insight that one plausible theory is that Jesus himself wrote or dictated the Epistle to the Hebrews? An answer to this question could save me some work... --AugustO 11:17, 9 December 2012 (EST)

So, you haven't discarded the insight. Then I'm waiting for you to address the points above, i.e.,

Aschlafly, you are claiming that in the Epistle to the Hebrews Jesus Christ is speaking about himself in the third person. That wouldn't be unheard of, we find this often in classical literature. E.g., when we read

“

Caesar saw the horse.

”

it could well be that Caesar was the author of this sentence. But what's about

“

Caesar saw me.

”

Here it is obvious that Caesar is not the author, as we have an instance of the first person (me). The same holds true for the Epistle to the Hebrews. One example is Hebrews 3:6

The ACLU has repeatedly opposed single-gender classes in public school, even though many schools and parents agree they work better. Thanks for linking to the above story, where the ACLU is complaining to the Department of Education, which creates a bit of a political issue for the Obama Administration. There are lots more of these single-gender schools than liberals want to admit - and they work well. I think there are even entire single-gender public schools now!

I am interested in these cases and I doubt the ACLU will win this issue in the long run. Thanks for mentioning it.--Andy Schlafly 21:33, 10 December 2012 (EST)

"Play in a State with so Much Liberal Mediocrity"

Technically, Tebow plays in New Jersey, home of Governor Chris Christie, who is neither mediocre nor a liberal. But I can't figure out how to rephrase it so it's factually accurate and not awkward-sounding, so unless you can do so, I'd just leave it that way on the main page. Nobody thinks of the Jets as being from New Jersey anyway. Gregkochuconn 16:58, 12 December 2012 (EST)

NJ voted for Obama in 2008/2012 and Obama is very liberal and more liberal than the RINO Mitt Romney.

Tea Party people and many other conservatives don't think Christie is a conservative.[1][2][3]

The team's fans are primarily in the New York metropolitan area which includes parts of NY/NJ. Conservative 20:37, 12 December 2012 (EST)

Email

Has the "Email this user" feature been disabled? I'm a bit rusty, but I can't seem to find it on any user pages. I also can't edit my email address under my preferences, which has changed since I was last here (finally jumped from hotmail to gmail). -- Jeff W. LauttamusDiscussion 14:26, 14 December 2012 (EST)

The email feature is disabled. It could return at some point. Sorry for any inconvenience.--Andy Schlafly 15:50, 14 December 2012 (EST)

The cited source is not enough support for the claim. Was this merely a dispute with the school district that lasted only a few days, or a few weeks? There is much greater evidence that Adam Lanza attended public high school, with an entry for him in the graduation yearbook.

No other homeschooler has corroborated the claim that Adam Lanza was homeschooled. Perhaps his mom thought about homeschooling him, and tried homeschooling briefly, but apparently she opted for public school instead.--Andy Schlafly 15:50, 16 December 2012 (EST)

Even if he was homeschooled for a brief period of time - he was homeschooled. In a true encyclopedia you don't leave out information so you can conveniently avoid discussion; you either mention the controversy or find a factually correct way around it (which would be listing both - since both are true). Mentioning that his mom considered homeschooling but chose public schools does not present the reality that he was - PERHAPS for a brief period of time but certainly for a time period - home schooled.--IDuan 15:53, 16 December 2012 (EST)

No, merely pulling a child out of public school because of a dispute with the school is not "homeschooling". It's called keeping the kid at home in protest.--Andy Schlafly 16:07, 16 December 2012 (EST)

Iduan, you are a good editor, but in this case I think you are wrong. I agree with ASchlafly, I don't think Adam Lanza can properly be termed "home schooled". Home schooling involves set lesson plans, a consistent progress evaluation, and a home teacher or parent who has a great interest in or background in childhood education and willingness to devote a lot of time for this. As the facts stand, we know that Lanza's mother removed him from public school due to a dispute with the school, it wasn't a predetermined plan for homeschooling, and we have no information on what type of schooling he received at home. In any case, this situation is an anomaly, a very unusual occurance, in that this young man was already known to have behavioral issues and personality problems. He is not typical of, or representative of, most home schooled children. (I looked up info and statistics on this, that's how I came to this conclusion). It would be accurate to say his mother removed him from public school at some point, but it just doesn't seem right to say he was "home schooled". In my opinion. Thanks, Taj 17:32, 16 December 2012 (EST)

Personal Honeypot

I've set up a honeypot wiki, to track and monitor wiki spammers. If you want, I can give you checkuser priviledges there, so you can partake in the experiment/project yourself. Url, if you are interested. brenden 23:27, 17 December 2012 (EST)

Merry Christmas!

As I will be spending the next few days offline with family, a very merry Christmas to you and your family, sir. --Benp 14:12, 23 December 2012 (EST)

And Merry Christmss to you and your family, Ben!--Andy Schlafly 14:15, 23 December 2012 (EST)

Your most recent counterexample to relativity (#48, about a black hole "firewall") is really fascinating. I had never heard about that idea, or about the "AMPS" (Almheiri, Polchinski, Marolf and Sully) hypothesis in general, though I knew about strange goings-on within the Planck distance from the event horizon. I have a lot of reading to catch up on, and will try to get back in a couple of days.

Santa may find me asleep, slumped in my chair with a book in my hand. I'll try to leave at least a few cookies for him, but there's no guarantee. Late-night physics reading creates a strong craving for chocolate chips.....

I'm pleased that the further review is now finished: the restoration of my blocking rights is the vindication I've been looking for over the last months. Thank you very much, that was a nice Christmas surprise!

Early voting and voter ID

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

I know you are interested in early voting, so I finished my analysis of early voting and voter ID in the strict photo voter ID states. You can find it at User:GregG/Early voting and voter ID. Merry Christmas, GregG 11:28, 24 December 2012 (EST)

Djw0071

I am troubled by biographical articles that do not name the individual nor supply reliable secondary sources about the individual. Today an article was created on Djw0071, but there are no real sources and the article was immediately protected. We have no way of knowing whether this person exists (or whether this person is a close friend of the person that wrote the article.) Absent reliable sources and the give-and-take of the editorial process, I respectfully question whether such an article complies with CP policy. Do you feel that the page should be protected from editing? Thanks, Wschact 02:14, 27 December 2012 (EST)

I fail to see the points in your argument as Djw0071 clearly exists as they have a youtube channel that has a nice selection of quite informative videos. The page locking is a bit annoying as I can see a few grammatical errors.` Dvergne 02:49, 27 December 2012 (EST)

I would be equally concerned whether it was appropriate for an encyclopedia to have articles in its mainspace about virtually unknown and irrelevant people on Youtube. The guy has 30 subscribers, and his 15 or so videos have only been viewed a total of 10,700 times, in the 4 years he has been on Youtube. This makes him a complete unknown and not notable in the least. There simply shouldn't be an article on anyone at Conservapedia unless they are even marginally significant. --DamianJohn 02:50, 27 December 2012 (EST)

Those numbers do seem a bit low, however there is evidence that Creationist channels are not treated as equally as say Evolutionist channels on youtube. Dvergne 02:55, 27 December 2012 (EST)

I don't believe that for a second but however. If you look at his videos, they are actually of pretty average quality. "Cat farting" is unlikely to get many views nor is a spectacularly banal point he makes about something Obiwan Kenobi says compared to Yoda, or a rant about hotdogs. It seems pretty clear to me that there is a bit of a quid pro quo going on here here; the owner/operator of the Question Evolution! has agreed to advertise Djw's channel in return for Djw giving that blog a plug in a video. That seems fair enough to me, and I encourage both parties to proceed with the best of luck, however it is NOT something that Conservapedia should be involved with. The mainspace of Conservapdia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an advertising medium for various blogs. The community will be looking to Aschlafly to provide leadership on this issue. --DamianJohn 03:19, 27 December 2012 (EST)

I have to agree that it was poor judgment to create Djw0071. The four "sources" provided are all links to the same anonymous blog, of which only two distinct pages are cited. And, as someone with a YouTube account (albeit one that has not had any new videos uploaded in about 3 years), I can assure you that, on statistics alone (which are about the same as mine), the channel is nowhere close to being notable. I don't see why non-notable people on the Internet have articles while this encyclopedia still lacks information on very notable people. GregG 11:01, 27 December 2012 (EST)

We all know that Djw0071 is poised to be a rising star in young earth creationism. Evolutionists, let's stop pretending otherwise. :) Conservative 13:49, 29 December 2012 (EST)

Merry Christmas

And a Merry Christmas to you too! DouglasA 14:01, 27 December 2012 (EST)

Overzealous blocking

Aschlafy, please have a look here (or, if it the section gets deleted, here). --AugustO 23:51, 27 December 2012 (EST)

vandal spree

By the time you read this (and probably revert to my version :-), you will see that there's been some bad goings on. Isn't there a policy that someone with blocking powers should be "on duty" at all times? Isn't that why editing is shut down overnight? Never mind. AlanE just stepped up. JudyJ 22:02, 29 December 2012 (EST)

SkipCaptcha and reverting

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

Pardon my thinking aloud, but I think it should be possible to not prompt for a CAPTCHA when reverting an article to a previous revision. I'll take a look on MediaWiki to see if there is a way to add this feature. GregG 23:47, 29 December 2012 (EST)

Someone has already requested such a feature [4], but it hasn't had any activity since June 2011. GregG 23:58, 29 December 2012 (EST)

Thanks

Thanks Aschlafly for the clean up of the mass vandalism by Germanottaparamore, which included my talk page and many others, as well. Cheers, --JohnJustice 11:19, 31 December 2012 (EST)

Hello

My name is Cole and I need help. I recently made an article about a website that harasses Conservapedia and its users. It was deleted. So I decided to go to Ed Poor for help.

This is what I said and stand by:

Im new here and need some help. I figured I would go to you since you seem very involved in the community. I recently tried to instate an article about R*tional Wiki and suddenly it was deleted. I thought since we had an article about Wikipedia that we could write about wikis. I also noticed that it had been deleted several times by the same people. Why? The words are spam filtered to. I feel that we need to write about the faults and propaganda of this completely biased website. Not to mention they completely badmouth you in the most rude ways. Please help...

To which he responded:

If you want to write about a website which slanders us, please contact User:Aschlafly for permission.

So I did and would like to know your opinion on the matter. Thank you--Colesmithsayshi 16:04, 31 December 2012 (EST)

I recently spoke with another editor concerning some edits to the video game article I considered erroneous and in some cases, spurious, and he suggested I refer my concerns to you.

The full list of most of my concerns can be found on the talk page for the article, but there was a claim you added that I did find a reference for, specifically, the one about how video games have contributed to the dropout rate of colleges:

The page referenced here is from 2008, but it does reinforce an assertion I initially removed that I originally found groundless. Still, I believe it would be wise to have a more contemporary source for this assertion, as it was one of the few articles I could find that defended that assertion.

For example, these articles cite other causes that have been consistently cited and verified elsewhere:

However, I have to confess to taking issue with the removal of the statement about games contributing to the development of critical thinking, which I know is not true as a gamer, and these articles can easily reinforce that point as valid:

For these reasons, I believe that article needs the part about critical thinking restored, and the part you added about drop out rates should probably be added farther down the page around the part where the article discusses the social impact of gaming (for good and ill).

I have no desire to contribute anything further to this website

I consider myself myself a Christian, I try believe the Bible is word of God, and I try not to sin against my fellow man, and I do think abortion and homosexuality have no moral standing in the eyes of God, and that he sent his son Jesus (who was God in human form) as our redemption and the Holy Spirit as a guide to that redemption.

At the same time, I believe in the God who redeems the sinful and hates the sin but not the sinner, a God who was stern but willing to show love for his enemies, even willing to die on a Cross for his enemies, friends, and even those who did not know him so that all may have everlasting life, and I believe in the God who showed kindness to not only prostitutes and tax collectors, but also to the very Pharisees who would eventually put him on the Cross, wishing to forgive them for the sheer gravity of the sin they didn't realize they were committing as he died there.

With that said, I must confess I heard a lot of bad press about Conservapedia before coming here, and I decided to follow the example of that tolerant, loving God, and I decided to ignore the scorn and derision of its critics, so I registered an account to post here, because while it did seem a little farther to the right than I anticipated, I did appreciate the idea of a conservative oriented wiki project, so I decided to contribute.

At first, I was frustrated by the general disorganization of the site and limited rights I had as an editor, but considered the frequent vandalism I seen that had to be undone, I understood the reasons for those limits and decided to contribute as best I could in helping improve the site quality.

I was aware that many parodists and trolls had infiltrated the site and had corrupted articles, and when I read over the articles accusing Obama of being a Muslim without any real proof that would withstand the scrutiny of a court of law (which, as I understand, would be an anathema to you, Mr. Schlafly, as you are a lawyer), I decided to investigate those sources to see if they had any basis to them.

Before I continue, I do not believe Obama has been an effective President of America nor an effective political leader, and I don't entirely believe his stated faith and his public morality matched up, but even Christians can fall away from the word of God, and unless there was solid proof of his being a Muslim, I will not accuse anyone of something I cannot prove, just as Jesus refused to accuse the Pharisees of things he could not prove, And besides, freedom of religious expression is an integral constitutional right, and even if Obama were a Muslim, that is completely immaterial to me as long as it does not infringe on my right to be a Christian.

As for those sources, I investigated many of them, and many of those sources were not only conservatively biased (this is an educational resource with a conservative focus, so that is not entirely bad), but some were clearly wrong, such as the oath of office not taking place on a bible (that's tradition, not law) being proof Obama was a Muslim, the point about Obama's middle name (even if he were a Muslim, even Muslim tradition would have no objection to his middle name, and US law would not require his name be changed for any reason), and most disgusting of all, the fact a Youtube video produced a religious bigot who equated Nazism with Islam accused Obama of mocking the Bible (I found the Original broadcast of the excerpted comments, and they were taken out of context) was clearly nothing but anti-Muslim hatred.

For the record, the reason I take issue with anti-Muslim hatred is this: they worship the same God as do Christians and Jews, so even if Obama were still Muslim, he still believes in the same God as you or I do, and he hasn't infringed on our rights to worship that God in any way, so the focus on his religion and why he must be a Muslim sounded more than a little paranoid. Besides, while John F. Kennedy was a Catholic, I would no more hold that against him than I would Obama being a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Shinto, Scientologist or even an agnostic or atheist, since the Constitution guarantees the right to believe anything you want, and while his public morality and political career seems like relevant targets of a conservative wiki, I found it frankly ridiculous and more than a little suspect about the focus on how Obama HAD TO BE a Muslim since quit I posting the day before this message.

When I finally decided to check back in, not only were the words other editors who also had reasonable doubts ignored (despite being legitimate), but I found this:

It wasn't even an extension of the religion debate, it was basically asking why anyone would doubt your own assertion Obama was a Muslim, and coupled with a reversal of almost every single reasonable doubt on the topic, I can only conclude your mind has already been made up that Obama is a Muslim, and while I don't understand your motives for this nor why the opinions of those who are clearly bigoted are allowed to stand as if they were as legitimate fact, I can only further conclude this wiki is little more than a vehicle for bigotry, intolerance, and hatred, just as was asserted in another wiki that criticizes this one and even a blog by a former administrator, and if that's the case, I want to be be permanently blocked as an editor from this wiki, as I want no more association with it, just as Jesus wished the temple of God to have no more association with moneychangers.

I bear you nor anyone else here any malice or ill will, Mr. Schlafly, but if this website is a representation of what true conservatives are like, then by its standards I'm a liberal. If this place is a representation of what followers of Christ believe, then by its standards I'm a heretic. And finally, if you want to know what I think a Christian is, then here it is in a sentence:

This user is a Christian, and remembers that Jesus preached tolerance and love, not homophobia and hate.

Patrick, I don't have time right now to read your lengthy posting. Whether Obama is a Muslim is matter of historical and political interest, and discussions about it are appropriate and enlightening. There is nothing anti-Muslim about it. Quite the contrary, it is important to give credit where it is due.--Andy Schlafly 10:51, 4 January 2013 (EST)

Can I respectfully suggest

That you consider whether Dvergne is the sort of person that should have blocking privileges here. He maliciously and without sufficient cause blocked me for an hour. Despite me being able to unblock myself I was unable to edit. His stated reason was that I had blocked a user named Funforever for breach of the name policy whilst in the middle of a bit of a swarm of spammers. If a mistake was made by me, I would hope that people entrusted with block powers would have the maturity to leave a comment on my talkpage, and not just deliberately seek to inflame the situation. --DamianJohn 22:58, 6 January 2013 (EST)

It seems this incident was a misunderstanding and the user has recreated their account (however it normally directly says so) Dvergne 23:03, 6 January 2013 (EST)

Dvergne was right about the unjustified block of "Funforever", who had done many legitimate edits. It seems this was a misunderstanding that has been cleared up.--Andy Schlafly 23:06, 6 January 2013 (EST)

Was he right to just block me though. Don't you think a quick note to me might have been a more mature and appropriate response? --DamianJohn 23:09, 6 January 2013 (EST)

No! There is something buiLding here. A "mitteleuropa"-type pre- or neo-nazi thing happening. Andy - shut it down!AlanE 23:23, 6 January 2013 (EST)

English names for foreign cities

Could you please take a look here? Thanks. --AugustO 03:28, 7 January 2013 (EST)

Upload request

I have an image I'd like to upload and insert in the article George Bernard Shaw. Can you tell me how to proceed? FOIA 16:11, 10 January 2013 (EST)

Please email a link to the image to conservapedia@zoho.com. Thanks!--Andy Schlafly 20:29, 10 January 2013 (EST)

Spending authority vs Backdoor spending authority

There seems to be a dispute brewing over a redirect from spending authority to backdoor spending authority. The terms are identical in meaning, and according to a former Rules Committee Chairwoman "spending authority" is merely the technical term for "backdoor authority". Can the Spending authority page be protected after a Redirect, or is there a process to resolve such an issues? Thanks. OscarO 20:26, 10 January 2013 (EST)

Andy, with all due respect, I find serious problems with OscarO's editing, including the verbatim lifting of text from Louise Slaughter's website without proper attribution. I thought that Slaughter was a liberal Democrat. Spending authority is a well defined term. "Backdoor spending authority" appears to reflect the jaded views of her committee staff. Conservatives favor user fees, privatization and public-private partnerships as an alternative to "tax and spend." Committee staff would smear those advances (which worked under Thatcher in the UK) as "backdoor" and seek to control everything through a centralized appropriation process instead of placing certain projects and services into their own financial "boat." The Spending Authority was reliably edited by conservatives from 2007 thru 2008 and remained in place until OscarO tried to redirect it to his Democrat-inspired "backdoor spending authority" article. I believe the redirect should be removed and the 2008 version of the article restored. Thanks, Wschact 23:56, 10 January 2013 (EST)

OscarO has extended an olive branch which I accept. We discuss whether the redirect should stay or go. Thanks, Wschact 00:52, 11 January 2013 (EST)

Backdoor spending is spending on auto-pilot. Elected Congresspersons can't even control it. Only 31% of the budget is discretionary spending which they do control. But if the Senate under Reid refuses to pass a budget, or do appropriations (as mandated by law), the only control mechanism left that the peoples elected representatives have is the debt ceiling. The fact unprecedented, unsustainable deficits and accumulated national debt, destroying jobs and the US economy, is the result of backdoor spending is something conservatives very much are interested and would like to learn about it more detail. OscarO 12:39, 11 January 2013 (EST)

If OscarO intends for "backdoor spending authority" to have a negative connotation, then it is something different from "spending authority". So, the article that was last edited in 2008 should be restored, and kept separate from the new article that he wrote yesterday. Again, the fact that only 31% of the budget is discretionary spending may be a good thing. Some people advocate ending most non-defense discretionary spending. Many conservatives favor toll roads, user fees, public-private partnership and privatization over "tax and spend" centralized control. All of these approaches involve decision-making, not "spending on auto-pilot." If the appropriations committees (and Congress as a whole) have less power and control of the economy, conservatives would claim a victory. Wschact 12:57, 11 January 2013 (EST)

On the separate issue as to whether the Senate has written and passed appropriation bills, the Senate has done its usual work on appropriation bills, but in some cases, they are blocked from coming to the floor by a Senate Republican filibuster. Reid tried to roll them up into a single, government-wide appropriation bill, but that also drew a filibuster. So, generally speaking, during the past few years Congress has only been able to appropriate funds in the form of continuing resolutions generally based on a percentage of prior year's spending. The funds are being appropriated at least through March 2013. Work is underway for the FY 2014 budget. So, as soon as Congress resolves the rest of the FY 2013 spending debate, it will have to turn to FY 2014 and adopt appropriation bills before October 2013. We are paying 535 officials to debate and make decisions, but all of that work is replaced by McConnell and Biden meeting in secret to work out a last-minute deal. This is not healthy, but CP should be careful to report on it as accurately as possible. Wschact 13:17, 11 January 2013 (EST)

No, I don't think you've grasped the narrative that has ensued since President's Obama's first 100 days. Sen Susan Collins (R-ME) broke ranks and voted to waive the Budget Act of 1974, dispensing with the appropriations process. Under Slaughter House Rules, the ARRA (intended as only one year "emergency spending" stimulus) and PPACA were passed without bi-partisan consensus. With the Budget Act waived, there's no need for Senate Democrats to go through the regular Appropriations process. Senate Democrats have not passed, nor even proposed a budget in more than three years now, using continuing resolutions instead -- and keeping Obama's one year, "emergency stimulus" spending levels intact for four years. Hence $5 trillion added to the national debt without our elected Senators even being allowed to vote on appropriations. OscarO 13:51, 11 January 2013 (EST)

Respectfully, the comments just above show why "backdoor spending authority" and "spending authority" should be two separate articles. The "spending authority" article was written in 2007 and updated in 2008. It is accurate and objective. "Backdoor spending authority" which was started yesterday, is turning into an opinion essay. Let's look at the appropriation process for FY 2013. THOMAS summary. Both the House and the Senate Committee have passed most of the appropriation bills. The full House did not pass 5 of the bills, and all of the Senate bills were filibustered and not allowed to be brought to the floor for a vote. However, the overall spending levels for FY2013 were set by the Budget Control Act of 2011 which included $1 trillion in identified cuts in addition to an across-the-board sequester that was supposed to go into effect on Jan 1, but has now been postponed to Mar 1. Many of the appropriation bills have bipartisan support. For example the Senate Defense Appropriation bill passed 30-0. The Appropriations Committees are drafting bills and committee reports and spending cuts have been enacted. Rather than using the regular order of voting on appropriation bills and resolving differences in conference committees and the budget reconciliation process, Congress is shifting from a 525-person process to a two-man negotiation: McConnell/Biden. Continuing resolutions are a form of appropriation (although not a good one.) I respectfully submit that OscarO is misinterpreting sources that addressed the 2009 stimulus bill and the ACA as applying to the FY2013 or FY2014 spending considerations. Thanks, Wschact 16:40, 11 January 2013 (EST)

The THOMAS link supports exactly what I outlined. Read it. The only action agreed upon by both houses and signed by the president was a Supplemental. Then you have Continuing Appropriations Act (through 3/27/2013) which is not an "Act" or law and doesn't need the president's signature because it is a continuing resolution to continue spending levels based upon the FY 2012's continuing resolution, which was based upon 2011's continuing resolution, which was based upon 2010's continuing resolution, which was based upon the last time the President proposed a budget and Senate Democrats voted on and passed a budget (when Susan Collins broke the filibuster against the vote to waived the Budget Act) in 2009. (See Summary). Like wise the Budget Resolution HConRes112, which "the President does not sign", cause it's not a law, budget, or appropriation. It's just a joint resolution of both houses to continue spending at last years levels cause they can't agree on any changes to the budget and appropriations. Spending is on autopilot. And your Representative was sent there with nothing to do because he can't increase or decrease spending on anything beyond what was established in Obama's first 100 days. And in the Senate, he can't even vote on a budget cause neither the president nor Senate Democrats have even proposed a budget in 4 years, as required by the Budget Act f 1974. OscarO 19:02, 11 January 2013 (EST)

The THOMAS link contradicts your claims. It shows that the President signed the continuing resolution (which is a form of appropriation law) on September 28, 2012. also whitehouse.gov Look at page 127 of this OMB reference source which says, "The Congress must present these CRs to the President for approval or veto." The spending levels were NOT based on "2011's continuing resolution" because the top line numbers were set in the Budget Control Act of 2011. It is true that budget resolutions are not laws and are not signed by the President because they are just internal instructions for the Congressional committees. A "budget resolution" is a form of "joint resolution of Congress" and nothing more. What counts are the appropriation bill(s). Your claim that "the president ... have even proposed a budget in 4 years" is false. E.g., 2013, 2009. The worst that you can say is that Obama submitted the budget a few days late,[5] but he definitely has submitted it each year. After reading your comments on Talk:Main_Page#CBO_just_released_estimates_on_the_.22Fiscal_Cliff.22_Deal as well as your subsequent comments here, I am worried that you are not understanding the sources that you are citing. Perhaps we can agree that the "spending authority" article can be restored to its 2008 content, and I will leave you alone to write whatever you want in the "backdoor spending authority" article, even if it is wrong. I want to get along with all CP editors, but there seems to be a fundamental problem here. Thanks, Wschact 01:55, 12 January 2013 (EST)

You're right, I misspoke on the Continuing Appropriations Resolution (elsewhere called the Continuation Appropriations Act). That was the debt increase deal that set up the fiscal cliff. Continuing Appropriations don't set budget parameters, they payoff the debts the agencies run up out the backdoor ex post facto. This is near the core of the issue: Repubs want to use Appropriations to get a handle on some forms of spending (discretionary spending); Harry Reid & the Dems use Appropriations to plug leaks authorized by executive agencies through the backdoor. OscarO 11:35, 12 January 2013 (EST)

As to the comment, "spending levels were NOT based on "2011's continuing resolution" because the top line numbers were set in the Budget Control Act of 2011"; technically true, but in the Budget Control Act of 2011 which set up the sequester, the numbers were based upon the previous CR. No major spending or revenue changes occurred in 2011. OscarO 11:52, 12 January 2013 (EST)

Everyone agrees that there is a US fiscal problem. We can improve the situation by CP providing accurate information. The Budget Control Act of 2011 set lower top line spending numbers and the sequestration. The act identified a specific set of budget cuts worth $1 trillion, and provided for sequestration which would cut an additional $1.2 trillion (over 10 years.) Your assumption about autopilot based on prior CRs is not correct. Also, all of these cuts deal with appropriated funds (discretionary spending). You are mistaken about "the agencies run up out the backdoor ex post facto." Agencies operating off of non-appropriate funds such as user fees in most cases do not drive up the national debt. However, "backdoor" is such a vague term that I am not certain which agencies you meant. Thanks, Wschact 13:23, 12 January 2013 (EST)

The Budget Control Act and sequestration were agreed upon, passed, and signed by the president; however implementation has been delayed 60 days, so even after passage and deadlines, backdoor spending on auto-pilot continues right now. And now, all cuts do not deal with just appropriated discretionary spending. The delay was due to the pain associated with cuts to mandatoryentitlement spending. Again, we're close to the nexus of dispute between Dems & Repubs, libs & conservs; conservatives believe elections and democratic representation in congress should allow for an elected member to act on spending control and deficits, but under current law, members of congress have little control over mandatory spending and deficits. OscarO 14:31, 12 January 2013 (EST)

{outdent}With all due respect, where are you getting this information? May I suggest that you read Bob Woodward's The Price of Politics for a detailed account of the 2011 negotiations? Read any summary of the Budget Control Act of 2011: the Act set the spending levels for FY 2012 and FY 2013 below the continuing resolution level of FY 2011. In addition, it required sequestration of an additional $1.2 trillion in mandatory savings effective January 1. The "fiscal cliff" law found enough revenue increases and budget cuts to fund a two month delay in the sequestration. (For example, the law cancelled the cost-of-living increase in Congressional salaries.) These cuts are effective immediately. So, your "autopilot" claim and other statements immediately above are not true. Are you willing to join me in a request to restore the "spending authority" article as a separate page? Thanks, Wschact 19:07, 12 January 2013 (EST)

You are correct there was some moderation in spending levels as a result of the 2010 midterms. But you're still claiming federal spending is determined by the appropriations process, and it's not; and the appropriations process pre-determines spending levels, and it does not. The appropriations process now just authorizes payment for spending that executive agencies have already have engaged in. Likewise you haven't addressed waiver of the Budget Act, which gave blank check authority to executive agencies and continues on autopilot through CR's. And allows both the president and Senate Dems to not only NOT propse a budget, but also our elected officials from voting on it. OscarO 19:33, 12 January 2013 (EST)

I have address that in prior comments. Please respond to my direct question: are you willing to see the protection on "spending authority" removed and the article restored to its 2008 version? Thanks, Wschact 19:37, 12 January 2013 (EST)

Show us where "backdoor" authority was re-defined in subsequent legislation after the 1974 Budget Act as something other than "spending authority", and you'd have a case. But I don't think it can be found. OscarO 19:59, 12 January 2013 (EST)

With all due respect, show me (with a US Code citation) where "backdoor authority" is defined in the statute. Thanks, Wschact 20:08, 12 January 2013 (EST)

So to sum up, the phrase is not used in the 1974 Act or any other statute, it is different from "spending authority", and you made up the term "backdoor spending authority." What objection to you have to restoring the "spending authority" article in the form that has been on CP since 2008? Wschact 22:16, 12 January 2013 (EST)

It's exactly as Rules Committee Chairwoman cited in the article describes, "defined in section 401(c)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended." OscarO 23:02, 12 January 2013 (EST)

Liberal claptrap added at $5 trillion to the national debt (1/3 of GDP) in just the last 4 years. don't you feel people have right to know how it was done? OscarO 23:23, 12 January 2013 (EST)

With all due respect, people have the right to know accurate information on the fiscal challenges. However, you are confused about "backdoor authority" adding $5 trillion to the national debt in the last 4 years. Trust funds and non-appropriated funds represent government spending that have separate revenue sources. In general, they do not contribute to the budget deficit. They are funded from user fees. (For example, when someone makes purchases at the Army base PX, money was spent to buy the merchandise, but the purchaser pays for what he buys.) The government collecting user fees helps the budget deficit, not hurts. This is taking far too much of Andy's valuable time. Let's resolve this by lifting the protection on "spending authority". Wschact 23:37, 12 January 2013 (EST)

I am sure you sincerely believe your answer, but it is not true. My personal opinion (which I will leave out of the articles) is that the Senate and the House cannot agree on "special instructions" so the Senate Republicans use a filibuster threat to prevent the full Senate from debating and voting on the annual budget resolution. The budget resolution, as you have agreed, is just a joint resolution of Congress. It is the appropriation bills that actually count, and the Senate Republicans have filibustered those as well, even when they pass the committee on a bipartisan 30-0. You are confusing cause and effect. The cause is politics, not the structure of spending authority. Government is so large that Congress should focus on what is important. The Army base restocking the PX with merchandise is not important and does not affect the budget and should be on "auto-pilot". Please don't confuse a concept with the bad results from it being possibly misapplied. Please don't confuse turf fights between the appropriations committees and the authorization committees with policy debates on the size of government. Write the article so that it is true at both the state and federal level, and if applicable the world. Now, how about lifting the protection on "spending authority"? Thanks, Wschact 09:23, 13 January 2013 (EST)

Wrong. The Budget cannot be filibustered. The Washington Post Fact Checker awarded Treasury Secretary-nominee Jack Lew its top award of four Pinocchios for fibbing on this canard. Also, while a PX operating at a loss or legislative pay raises may impact somewhere like New Zealand's operating deficit, I doubt if these items approximate .00001% of the US federal budget. It should not be too hard to check. But repeated references to such lame, miniscule, and obscure items show you haven't grasped even the broad outlines of the magnitude of the problem. I don't mean to sound disrespectful, but examine the numbers, and examine the facts seriously, for a moment. Thank you. OscarO 14:21, 13 January 2013 (EST)

Andy, it is time to reach a decision. Is CP going to have an accurate "spending authority" article (such as the one that was written in 2007 through 2008), or are we going to conflate a civics concept that is applicable at both the state and federal levels with the undocumented personal essay written over the last few days under the term "backdoor spending authority"? If you chose the latter, I will respect your decision and refrain from further remarks. Thanks, Wschact 12:57, 13 January 2013 (EST)

A couple of days ago, I presented on this talk-page an experiment for undergraduate students of natural sciences in which the classical Newtonian predictions for the mass and the impulse of fast-moving objects weren't applicable, but which was consistent with the predictions of the theory of Special Relativity.

You didn't tell us how this experiment is flawed, you just called it bizarre and asked me personally: August, please explain below any high school experiment that you think proves the formula.

Certainly you know that proof is for mathematics and whiskey only, but I stated an experiment which is performed at high-schools (or at least at German Gymnasia), and which relies in its mathematical description on Einstein's mass-energy-equivalence, i.e., E=mc². You are somewhat familiar with this experiment, at least you started an article about it a couple of years ago: Compton Scattering